Tag Archives : Build House

'Dangerous days': These will be the hottest California counties in 2053, study finds

(NEXSTAR) – California, along with Arizona, Florida and Texas, make up a new list of the top 20 counties projected to see the most days per year with temperatures above 100° F, according to a new study.

In 2023, the roughly 180,000 residents of Imperial County in Southern California are projected to experience 102 “dangerous” days with a heat index exceeding 100, according to nonprofit First Street Foundation’s peer-reviewed model. By 2053, that number is 116.

It’s not just California, either. First Street’s study found that in three decades a so-called “extreme heat belt” will include Northern Texas and states bordering the Gulf, stretching north to Illinois, Indiana, and even up to Wisconsin.

The study found that “dangerous” days occur more often in the southern half of the contiguous U.S., but especially in Florida and Texas. Starr County, Texas, topped all others in 2022 with 109 days above the threshold. Imperial, California is expected to have 53 consecutive dangerous days this year, the report states.

Here are the California counties projected to see the most days with a heat index over 100°:

The model takes into account a number of factors including land surface temperatures, tree and other canopy cover, the presence of concrete and other impervious surfaces and the proximity to water. Researchers built the model under an established warming scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions reach their peak around 2040 and then begin to decline.

“Increasing temperatures are broadly discussed as averages, but the focus should be on the extension of the extreme tail events expected in a given year,” said Matthew Eby, founder and CEO of First Street Foundation. “We need to be prepared for the inevitable, that a quarter of the country will soon fall inside the Extreme Heat Belt with temperatures exceeding 125°F and the results will be dire.”

In 2023, 8.1 million Americans living in 50 counties will experience temperatures of at least 125 degrees, the highest classification on the National Weather Service’s Heat Index – “Extreme Danger,” according to researchers.

Three decades later, the same model shows that climate change will cause 1,023 counties – home to 107.6 million people – to see temperatures rise above 125 degrees.

Preventing deaths from worsening heat

In July, days after nearly half the country — 154.6 million people — sweated through a blistering heat wave, the Biden Administration unveiled heat.gov, which includes maps, forecasts and health advice. The government can’t lower temperatures in the short-term, but it can shrink heat’s death toll, officials said.

“July 2021 was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth and summers are getting hotter and deadlier,” said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Rick Spinrad. “The annual average temperature of the contiguous U.S. has already warmed over the past few decades and is projected to rise by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 to 5 degrees Celsius) by the end of this century.”

But officials said even though heat is the No. 1 weather killer, and warming is worsening, deaths can still be prevented. That’s the purpose of the website.

North Carolina state climatologist Kathie Dello said, “extreme heat is one of our greatest challenges as a county and I’m glad to see the interagency cooperation.”

It’s important that the website shows that heat isn’t just a problem for today “but in the future,” Dello said.

Given warming trends, this summer with its widespread heat waves “is likely to be one of the coolest summers of the rest of our lives,” Raimondo said. “That’s a pretty scary thing.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: TEST FEED1

85 arrested, nearly $13M worth of narcotics seized in Florida drug trafficking investigation

Officials in Florida have arrested 85 individuals in a two-year drug trafficking investigation, recovering almost $13 million in seized drugs, which include fentanyl and cocaine. 

A Thursday release from the Polk County Sherriff’s Office, located in central Florida, states that detectives with the Central Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force worked with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to conduct the undercover investigation. 

The release states that three suspects have been charged in addition to the 85 already taken into custody. 

Officials began their investigation in September 2020 when they seized a pound of methamphetamine after executing a search warrant in the city of Winter Haven.

Detectives continued to buy drugs from dealers in the area, which allowed them to learn that “large amounts” of methamphetamine were being smuggled from California to Florida in checked luggage. 

Detectives wiretapped the suspects in February, and intercepted and monitored communications between suspects who were believed to be affiliated with the drug trafficking organization.

The release states that the suspects have been charged with a total of 355 felonies and 93 misdemeanors. 

Sheriff Grady Judd said in the release that this is the largest single drug seizure and number of arrests in the county’s history during an undercover wiretap investigation. 

“We will continue to follow up leads and make more arrests, so those who think they got away from us – think again,” he said. 

Items seized include 268 pounds of methamphetamine, 31 pounds of cocaine, 6.8 ounces of fentanyl and 49 firearms.

Source: TEST FEED1

COVID-19 associated with increased risk of brain disorders 2 years after infection: study

A study published on Wednesday shows a history of COVID-19 infection is associated with an increased risk of neurological aftereffects.

“COVID-19 is associated with increased risks of neurological and psychiatric sequelae in the weeks and months thereafter,” reads the study, titled “Neurological and psychiatric risk trajectories after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis of 2-year retrospective cohort studies including 1,284,437 patients.”

Sequelae are conditions resulting from a prior illness or incident.

“How long these risks remain, whether they affect children and adults similarly, and whether SARS-CoV-2 variants differ in their risk profiles remains unclear,” the study, published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal, continues.

The study examined de-identified data from over a million patients using an international health records network that drew from the U.S., Australia, the U.K., Spain, Bulgaria, India, Malaysia and Taiwan. Most patients considered by the study were American.

The records of patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20, 2020, and April 13, 2022, were evaluated for 14 neurological and psychiatric diagnoses.

The study found that COVID-19 infection was linked to a higher instance of mood and anxiety disorders which declined after 1-2 months.

It also found that COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of dementia, psychotic disorders, epilepsy or seizures and cognitive deficit, or “brain fog,” that remained elevated two years after patients were first diagnosed with the virus.

The risks of those aftereffects varied for different age groups, according to the study.

“A sizeable proportion of older adults who received a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis, in either cohort, subsequently died, especially those diagnosed with dementia or epilepsy or seizures,” the study reads.

Children were not found to be at increased risk of mood or anxiety disorders in the six months after infection, but did see an increased risk of “cognitive deficit, insomnia, intracranial haemorrhage, ischaemic stroke, nerve, nerve root, and plexus disorders, psychotic disorders, and epilepsy or seizures.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Mar-a-Lago mess: How Merrick Garland can regain the public’s trust

In a three-minute press conference following the FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, Attorney General Merrick Garland cut a defiant figure, condemning critics of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI: “I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.” He then left the stage without taking questions or answering that criticism.

It was a signature moment for Garland, who often responds to controversies with belated, rote remarks. His brief comments had all of the substance of a Hallmark card that read, “Trust us, we’re the government.” Yet trust has to be earned, not simply demanded.

This coming week, Garland has another opportunity to show leadership and reassure the public by ordering substantive disclosures in the proposed redacted affidavit justifying the raid. If not, this will be the fifth missed opportunity to demonstrate that the DOJ deserves the public’s trust.

The indignation expressed by Garland in his public remarks seemed to ignore legitimate concerns over the DOJ’s motivations and record in past Trump-related investigations. Both the FBI and DOJ have documented histories of false court statements and bias against Trump, leading to the collapse of the Russia-collusion allegations and the firing of high-ranking officials.

Garland was aware of that history and the troubling context — ordering a raid on a past and possible future opponent of President Joe Biden — when he ordered the unprecedented raid on the home of a former president. He may be justified in ordering it, but he cannot simply dismiss critics as unhinged extremists.

It is equally troubling that, at every earlier opportunity to make a modest step to assure such citizens, Garland has failed:

The Negotiations

It is unclear why Garland opted for a search warrant rather than a second subpoena like one used in June to seize boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago. Trump’s team claims to have communications from the FBI reflecting that they cooperated with the search, then followed the FBI’s request to reinforce security on a storage room. It is unclear what communications occurred after the June meeting — or, if remaining documents were a concern, why the DOJ did not immediately issue a second subpoena. While the DOJ claimed time was of the essence to retrieve national security material, Garland reportedly waited weeks before signing off on the search warrant application and the FBI waited a weekend to execute the search. There was plenty of time to seek a voluntary surrender or consensual search.

The Warrant

The second opportunity occurred when the DOJ sought the warrant. While knowing that every aspect of the search would be scrutinized, it adopted language so broad that it was virtually the legal version of Captain Jack Sparrow’s “Take what you can … Give nothing back.” It allowed the seizure of any box containing any document with any classification of any kind — and all boxes stored with that box; it allowed the seizure of any writing from Trump’s presidency. If Garland wanted to assure Americans of an apolitical motive, he could have crafted that warrant more narrowly. Instead, the government scooped up everything, from passports to attorney-client material.

The Raid

Garland’s third opportunity came with the raid itself. Rather than descending on Trump’s home with 30 to 40 officers and a dozen vehicles, this is a search that could have been done by a few inconspicuous agents without risk. They didn’t have to arrive by Uber, but they also didn’t need to arrive like this. Instead, as with other Trump targets from Roger Stone to Paul Manafort and Peter Navarro, the DOJ chose the most heavy-handed, overwhelming-force option.

The Review

After the raid, Garland missed his fourth opportunity. It was obvious the raid would ignite a country that is a tinderbox, particularly before a major election. Garland could have issued a statement reassuring the public and immediately secured the documents, asking for an independent special master or federal magistrate to sort out any material beyond the warrant’s scope, including attorney-client material. That would have ended speculation about a pretextual search aimed at finding incriminating evidence of other crimes, including material related to the Jan. 6 riot. Garland not only didn’t take such a precaution but reportedly refused Trump’s request for such an appointment. Garland then compounded the problem by refusing to address basic concerns in his brief presser, including the allegation of a pretextual search.

The Affidavit

Garland now has a fifth opportunity in responding to a magistrate’s order to recommend parts of the affidavit for public release. Garland initially refused to release the affidavit, then implausibly asserted that nothing in it could be released in the interests of national security. Most affidavits have sections that can be released without damaging an investigation or compromising witnesses, including information already known to the target. In this case, Garland could, at a minimum, release the account of the communications with the Trump team. It may be discomforting for DOJ officials accustomed to total control over such information, but it would reassure the public in a growing political crisis.

Obviously, after insisting no disclosures could be made, it is now doubly difficult for Garland to reverse himself. Such a bold move would be out of character for Garland, who often appears more of a passenger than the driver of his own department. But he needs now to be proactive rather than reactive to this controversy — by overruling those in the DOJ who pushed for the raid and demanded a total bar on disclosures of the affidavit.

What is clear is that Garland’s “trust us” mantra has done little to assuage concerns. Indeed, that seems almost comical to many people, given the Crossfire Hurricane debacle and the fact that this investigation is being handled by the same section.

Transparency on the search may push some at the DOJ outside of their comfort zone, but the raid has already has pushed many on both sides of the political spectrum to the brink. One MSNBC host declared that the “civil war is here” while, in a shocking Rasmussen poll, 46 percent of Americans now view the FBI unfavorably and 53 percent believe it is being misused by the Biden administration. Even assuming that Rasmussen trends conservative, those numbers likely reflect the view of many of the more than 74 million people who voted for Trump in 2020.

So far, Garland has done little to earn the trust of almost half of the country. In this and other controversies, he has demanded respect but refused to take even modest measures to justify it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Source: TEST FEED1

Fla. state House candidate banned from Twitter for suggesting violence against federal officials

A candidate for running for a seat in Florida’s state House was banned on Twitter on Thursday after he advocated violence against the FBI and other federal agencies.

“Under my plan, all Floridians will have permission to shoot FBI, IRS, ATF and all other feds ON SIGHT!” tweeted Luis Miguel (R), who is running in the 20th district of the Florida House, according to Florida Politics. “Let freedom ring!”

Miguel told Florida Politics that he stands by the “plan” he proposed earlier in the week because the IRS has been “weaponized by dissident forces,” saying that his permanent suspension from Twitter “doesn’t affect (him) at all.”

The Hill has reached out to Miguel for comment on the suspension.

A spokesperson for Twitter told The Hill that the account @LuisMiguelUS is “permanently suspended for violating our hateful conduct policy.”

“You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease,” reads Twitter’s policy on hateful conduct.

The news comes after members of the GOP have slammed the FBI following the bureau’s search of former President Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Fla. The former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate was searched for classified documents that the Department of Justice suspected were taken following Trump’s loss in 2020.

In addition, Republicans have railed against the IRS after President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law. The spending bill would provide $80 billion in funding to the agency over the next 10 years to help enforce provisions in the IRA. However, members of the GOP have claimed that the funding would be used to hire tens of thousands of agents and audits would increase for non-wealthy Americans.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) went to far as to warn Americans not to apply for positions at the IRS since a Republican majority would immediately seek to reverse the funding increase.

Miguel’s Facebook and Instagram pages, where Florida Politics reports he also posted the controversial tweet, are also inaccessible.

The Hill has reached out to both social media companies for comment.

Miguel is running against incumbent Rep. Bobby Payne (R) on Tuesday, according to The St. Augustine Record, in a northern district of the Florida House. Payne currently represents district 19 but is running to represent district 20 after redistricting in the state.

One of them will head to the general election on Nov. 8 to face a Democratic opponent.

The Hill has reached out to Payne for comment on Miguel’s proposal of shooting federal officials.

Source: TEST FEED1

Hannity slams McConnell for comments on 'candidate quality' in Senate races

Fox News host Sean Hannity went after Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) during his show Friday for comments the Senate minority leader made about the chances Republicans have to take control of the Senate in November.

McConnell said Thursday that he believes Republicans have a better chance of flipping the House than the Senate during the 2022 midterms, adding that “candidate quality has a lot to do with the outcome” in Senate races.

Hannity slammed the remarks, saying that the seasoned GOP leader was leaving party members “out to dry.”

“Democrats are painting Republican Senate candidates in upcoming elections and midterms as cruel and out of touch,” Hannity said. “Well, apparently Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is content to leave them out to dry and fend for themselves. Listen to these comments, they’re very encouraging,” Hannity said facetiously before playing a clip of McConnell explaining his predictions.

“You don’t hear [Chuck Schumer] complaining about candidate quality in Pennsylvania,” Hannity continued, referring to progressive candidate John Fetterman. “How about you get out there, Mitch, and fight for your team? What’s your agenda, Mitch, or would you rather just sit by and watch helplessly as Democrats lie to your face, pass another $500 billion green energy boondoggle?”

The Fox anchor suggested that McConnell may be pulling against Trump-backed candidates for personal reasons, as the former president has lashed out at McConnell since his 2020 loss and the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

“His team as a leader needs to come to an end,” Hannity concluded.

The host’s comments come as recent polling shows Trump-backed GOP candidates Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Blake Masters (R), Mehmet Oz (R) and Herschel Walker (R) either trailing or locked in tight races in key midterm elections in Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia, respectively.

Source: TEST FEED1

State gun regulations are a messy patchwork. The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision won’t help

Gun rights advocates cheered the Supreme Court’s June decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen as a reaffirmation of the Second Amendment’s protections of an individual right to bear arms. Gun control advocates grumbled that the decision would prove a costly disaster for states desperate to address sharply rising rates of gun violence.

And yet, as states are already proving, the truth is likely to be more complicated. Rather than an abrupt change to American gun laws, the Bruen opinion may accelerate existing political and legal trends, driving state laws toward more permissive and more restrictive gun regulations.

Red-state legislatures will likely continue their efforts to make it easier to own and carry guns — citing Bruen as a reason to relax their gun laws, repeal existing laws or vote against gun regulation. Blue states, by contrast, will likely continue to expand restrictions, citing passages in Bruen that bless gun licensing, the designation of sensitive places unsuitable for the presence of firearms, the prohibition of dangerous and unusual weapons, and the restriction of gun ownership to those who are “law abiding, responsible citizens.”

Indeed, just weeks after many gun laws were upended by Bruen, state governments sought measures to avoid the seemingly-inevitable shift toward more permissive gun policy environments by raising age limits for buying semiautomatic rifles, requiring background checks for ammunition purchases and allowing individuals and local governments to sue irresponsible gunmakers for harm caused by their products.

The Bruen decision, then, may not actually narrow the policy gap between states sharply divided over their approach to regulating guns. Rather, its result may not look very different than what we have today — a patchwork of laws that often reflect political and policy demands of individual states. That is, until the court accepts new cases and clarifies some of the significant ambiguities that Bruen has left lower courts to sort out.

Bruen concerned New York’s “may issue” concealed carry law, which required that a person seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon show “proper cause” to obtain a license. “Proper cause,” under New York law, was defined as a special need, separate from a generalized need for self-defense, which is shared by everyone. In its ruling, the court indicated that gun regulations must be analyzed to see if they comport with traditional American practices of gun ownership and regulation. If not, they must be struck down.

All of this would seem to open the floodgates for guns. And yet, in concurring opinions by Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts – whose three votes were essential for the six-justice majority ruling – the court indicated that licensing laws for concealed carry that use more objective metrics than “proper cause” are presumptively constitutional. Gun ownership may be, in the court’s view, a fundamental and historical American right, but so is the regulation and licensing around gun ownership and public carrying. States with so-called “shall-issue” laws – with less subjective and discretionary considerations about who may own and carry a firearm –  would seem to comply with the Second Amendment after Bruen.

The presumptive constitutionality of these “shall issue” jurisdictions should provide ample room for states to ensure that firearms are not carried by the violent and the reckless — the people the now unconstitutional “may issue” laws were meant to screen out.

For example, some “suitability” permitting standards that deny licenses to persons who are a potential hazard to themselves and others seem to still be on the table. Some states, like Connecticut, deny permits to persons “whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the essential character o[r] temperament necessary to be entrusted with a weapon.” Others, like Colorado and Oregon, enforce standards that prohibit the carrying of firearms to those with documented histories of drinking or drug problems, violence or emotional instability. Still other states, like Delaware (a state with a “may issue” law that the court considered constitutional), require that an applicant submit five character references from “respectable citizens” of the county, and have notice of the application published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Such “good moral character” standards may allow license issuing authorities to consider applicants’ public statements, such as their social media posts, in making licensing determinations (although, depending on their breadth, this may raise some First Amendment issues).

Indeed, both California and New York have already included such “social media checks” in their application processes. By allowing states to determine suitability conditions for licenses to carry or even possess a firearm, Bruen may invite states interested in keeping guns out of the hands of high-risk citizens to develop more targeted, effective and consistent licensing rule than the “may issue” laws they replace.

Training standards provide another mechanism for ensuring safe gun carrying. Some of the presumptively constitutional “shall issue” states, like Florida and Michigan, require minimum levels of training, including live fire. Similar tests could be used in other states. Such regulations could be defended under Bruen by noting their historical analogues in the training standards required of militias in the early days of the republic.

Civilian training requirements could also include de-escalation and implicit bias training to reduce the erroneous use of deadly force against racial minorities, which is a common occurrence among the police. And suitability requirements could be graduated, much like driver licenses, to reflect the dangerousness of the weapon to be carried or the places a gun is allowed to be carried.

Tennessee, for instance, has a graduated licensing system that allows those who receive more training and who meet other criteria to obtain enhanced permits allowing them to carry concealed weapons in more places than those who obtain standard permits.

Finally, the court’s opinion was quite vague on what places states can legitimately describe as “sensitive,” where guns could be prohibited. Instead, the court again looked back in time, suggesting that historical analogues should guide these decisions. Yet, if history is to guide us, early America was filled with examples of gun carriage restrictions, going back to the early common law. Restrictions of guns at fairs, markets, polling places, places of public assembly and public education are well documented in the historical record. States will almost certainly expand the list to cover places where modern educational, civic and political activity occurs.

That said, red-state legislatures are likely to see Bruen less as an invitation to regulate than as permission to further deregulate guns and gun ownership. Bruen’s defense of public carry will be cited by gun rights advocates as a justification to repeal or relax what limited licensing remain in those states in favor of so-called “constitutional carry.” The court’s “history and analogy” approach to constitutionality will potentially be used by red-state legislatures to sift through their existing laws and purge all those that have no clear legislative equivalent in the founding era.

Almost certainly, some legislators will use the Bruen ruling as reason to vote down any kind of modern regulation – such as emergency risk protection orders (“red flag laws”) – they deem as limiting gun rights. Bruen doesn’t command this result; but it offers a legal justification for such policy choices.  

The result of this, in all likelihood, is that, unless the court clarifies its Bruen holding, we’ll see for the foreseeable future what we’ve seen for the last decade: Blue states regulating within the ambiguities and interstices of the Supreme Court’s decisions on guns; red states articulating their political and policy preferences as a matter of constitutional right and requirement.

Thus, we’ll see a continuing separation between blue states and red states (blue urban areas and red rural areas) — about how, state by state, region by region, we understand our fundamental, constitutional framework surrounding the right to keep and bear arms.

Andrew Morral is a senior scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and director of its Gun Policy in America initiative. Rosanna Smart is an economist at RAND.  Darrell Miller is the Melvin G. Shimm professor of law at Duke University.

Source: TEST FEED1

Louisiana woman says she was denied abortion after fetus diagnosed with lethal condition

A pregnant woman in Louisiana claimed that she was denied an abortion after the fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition, according to a statement from her lawyer.

Nancy Davis said that she was denied the procedure after the fetus was diagnosed with acrania, a condition where the skull of the child does not form inside the womb, according to the National Library of Medicine.

This abnormality will not allow the child to survive long once it’s born.

In a statement released on social media, Davis’s lawyer, prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump, said that the woman was alerted by her doctors of the diagnosis around week 10 of her pregnancy and instructed to get an abortion. However, she was denied the procedure “due to the fetus still having a heartbeat.”

“Ms. Nancy Davis was put in a horrifically cruel position by the State of Louisiana, left with only two choices: To carry the fetus until its inevitable death or to travel to another state to end the pregnancy weeks after she made the incredibly painful decision to do so,” Crump said.

Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge spokesperson Caroline Isemann said while she was unable to comment specifically on Davis’s case, there are many complexities involved in a case like hers, according to CNN.

“We look at each patient’s individual circumstances and how to remain in compliance with all current state laws to the best of our ability,” said Isemann.

She added: “Even if a specific diagnosis falls under medically futile exceptions provided by (the Louisiana Department of Health), the laws addressing treatment methods are much more complex and seemingly contradictory.”

The Hill has reached out to the Woman’s Hospital for comment.

“Regardless of what Louisiana lawmakers claim, the law is having its intended effect, causing doctors to refuse to perform abortions even when they are medically necessary out of fear of losing their medical licenses or facing criminal charges,” said Crump of the situation.

There are three abortion laws that went into effect after the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade. These laws ban abortions at or shortly after the fetus is conceived, according to The New York Times.

Davis will travel outside of Louisiana to procure the abortion she was seeking, according to Crump. She is now 14 weeks pregnant.

Source: TEST FEED1

Red state, blue state, whatever

It’s common to hear people refer to states as “red” or “blue,” or even “purple,” based on whether a majority of Republicans or Democrats get elected. It would be a mistake to think that red states are all the same or that blue states all enact the same kinds of policies. States are far more complex than these partisan caricatures suggest, and policies are based as much on what is popular as they are by their political officeholders.

Washington is a blue state, yet it has no income tax. A red state, North Dakota, has the country’s only state government-operated bank. Blue Massachusetts has no local sales taxes. Louisiana, a red state, has the most occupational requirements of any state, while blue Vermont is one of the least restrictive.

These examples would not exist if the partisan makeup of government were the only thing that mattered. But the reasons why any one policy is enacted can get complicated.

Washington prohibits progressive income taxes in its constitution and voters there keep refusing to amend it. Democratic Party officials in the state keep proposing an income tax. Recent efforts even tried to bend the definition of “income tax” in order to get one. But decades of efforts haven’t made the tax palatable to Washington’s voters. They vote for Democrats — and against their progressive tax plans.

On the other side, socialists governed North Dakota in the early 20th century. They started a state-run bank, believing it would be better for farmers. Contemporary Republicans in the state see no reason to close it.

Despite its limitations, the red-state, blue-state method of categorizing states offers a useful shorthand. Clearly, candidates who win elections matter when a state enacts policies. Red states tended to cut taxes this year while blue states tended to write checks to residents and call them rebates. 

But too many people take the tendencies too far. When a state switches from red team to blue team, or vice versa, that doesn’t guarantee it will enact a pre-approved and color-coded set of policies. Elections change what is politically possible, but they can’t make popular policies unpopular. Flipping the partisan make-up of a legislature can shift the Overton Window, but it doesn’t make what was impassable possible.

What matters more than who has power is how popular specific policy recommendations are. Politicians who want to stay in power understand that they’ll need to promote popular policies and pass popular laws, and this desire transcends partisan tendencies.

What voters think matters a lot. Charter schools are historically beloved by Republicans and disdained by Democrats. That remains true to some extent. But Democrats are not shutting down charters when their voters like them.

Voter intensity also matters in determining which policies a state has. It explains why there are so many examples of political favors that should be unpopular, but remain in law. Special treatment for special interests should upset and frustrate both teams. Lawmakers in both red states and blue states offer what ought to be unpopular favors — and they will continue to do so until voters get mad enough. Voters may not like state-protected liquor monopolies, for example, but until they get sufficiently angry, politicians won’t end them.

So, elections do matter. The red team wants to capitalize on the blue team’s failures, and vice versa. The winner does affect which policies get enacted. But people should care more about what the government actually does, regardless of which party is in charge.

It’s the popularity of a policy that makes it politically possible, regardless of who wins elections. It’s the reason why states are more complicated than their partisan caricatures suggest. People ought to care a little less about which parties get elected and a little more about the policies they want.

James M. Hohman is director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich., and host of “The Overton Window” podcast. Follow him on Twitter @jawtrymesHohman.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats set to clash in brutal New York House primaries

Democrats are bracing for a set of high-profile New York House primaries on Tuesday that pit two top-ranking incumbents against each other in one district while attracting a field of a dozen candidates vying for an open seat in another.

In New York’s 12th Congressional District, Democrats Reps. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.) and Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), chairs of the House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight Committee respectively, are facing off in a messy contest between two heavy-hitters with decades in Congress.

Redistricting and the shuffle that followed left an open seat in the 10th District, for which a dozen candidates are vying, including Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), who currently represents the 17th District, and Dan Goldman, the lead counsel in the first impeachment trial against former President Trump.

Both districts lean heavily Democratic, meaning the winner of the primaries is likely to prevail in the general election.

The state’s congressional primaries were delayed from their original June date after the state was unable to finalize its district maps in time. The final maps in turn set off a scramble among lawmakers deciding in which district to run.

The primary in the 12th District has put Democrats in a particularly awkward position, with voters being asked to choose between two powerful lawmakers with similar voting records. The new map merged the cores of their districts along the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side.

Progressive attorney Suraj Patel is also making a bid for the district, trying to convince New Yorkers to pick a fresh face to represent them.

In recent weeks, Nadler has surged ahead, with polls showing him with a double-digit lead over Maloney. He was also endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and won the coveted New York Times endorsement, which strategists say could prove consequential. 

Chris Coffey, a Democratic strategist who was raised in the 12th Congressional District and now lives in the 10th, said the timing of the primary could also advantage Nadler over Maloney because of the way the new district is drawn and the tendency of some New Yorkers to leave town for the summer.

“So a lot of folks that Carolyn relies on in a June primary or November election are just gone, and some of them will vote vie absentee and some of them won’t. And that you know, the same is true on the West Side, but it’s less pronounced on the West Side,” he said. “Again, not to make too big of a deal of the Times, but you know, the Time endorsement matters a lot.”

“And there’s no where it matters more than the Upper East and the Upper West Sides. And so I think there’ll be voters on the Upper East Side who read the Times and you know, if 10 percent of those people decide to switch their vote from Carolyn to Jerry, like that’s it. It’s over,” he added.

But Maloney has been hitting back, arguing against what she called an “old boys network.”

Bob Liff, a spokesperson for Maloney, said in an email to The Hill that Congress needed more strong women and touted the lawmaker’s accomplishments.

“With the Supreme Court bulldozing women’s rights, gutting New York’s gun laws and throwing roadblocks in the way of enforcing clean air and clean water laws, we need strong, effective, progressive women to fight for our rights and our futures,” Liff said.

Julian Gerson, co-campaign manager for Nadler, told The Hill that congressman had “a huge amount of respect” for Maloney but described the congressman’s voting history as a “record as a principal progressive,” noting that the Nadler supported the 2015 Iran deal and voted against the Iraq War and Patriot Act. 

 Maloney has supported both the Patriot Act and Iraq War, while she did not support the 2015 deal at the time. The Times editorial board noted those differences in its endorsement of Nadler.

Patel, meanwhile, told The Hill both Maloney and Nadler “are campaigning on accomplishments or press releases or statements, frankly, from 1998 and 2006 and 2009. Neither of them are talking about 2024 or 2026, or what New York needs today.”

While much of the attention has been on Maloney and Nadler, Coffey said Patel has run “a good campaign, a very fresh, energetic campaign,” and it could be a three-way race. 

Patel has twice gone head-to-head with Maloney in Democratic primaries, losing by single digits in 2020.

Bruce Gyory, another New York-based Democratic strategist, said the decision to choose between the candidates would be a tough one. 

“I get the sense that there’s a lot of — what is the phrase, wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth — to be biblical, and they don’t know how to choose. And that’s why I think the Times endorsement there could have a great impact, and I don’t get the sense there’s the same blowback to the Times endorsement that exists in the 10th,” he said.

“It’s almost akin to the difficulty of being a college admissions officer at a very prestigious college. You get all these applications in front of you. They all have similar GPAs and SATs and extracurriculars and recommendation letters, and they all look like brilliant young men and women, and how the heck do I choose?” he added.

The 10th District also saw significant upheaval after redistricting.  

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm who represents the 18th District, controversially opted to run in the 17th, currently represented by Jones. 

Jones, in turn jumped to the 10th district, which has since drawn a crowded field that also includes Goldman, New York State Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou; New York City Council Member Carlina Rivera and former New York City Comptroller Liz Holtzman, once a member of Congress.

An Emerson College Polling-PIX11-The Hill poll released earlier this week showed Goldman, a Levi Strauss & Co. heir who has poured millions into his own campaign, in the lead and 5 percentage points ahead Niou, who came in second.

Goldman has come under criticism from some of his opponents for channeling his own money in the race, and has also been accused of not being liberal enough. 

His campaign, however, brushed off those accusations and said that the former federal prosecutor will be running a “positive values-based campaign” and said “there is no ego in this.”

“He’s not [a] traditional politician. He hasn’t held elected office before, and it’s something that we’ve had to grow accustomed to, but it’s you know, it’s par for the course. And Dan, through all of it, is very much committed to keeping things positive … and, you know, let everybody else scrap it out and do whatever they want,” his campaign told The Hill. 

Others still see a viable path forward. 

“What we’re seeing with undecided voters, as they start to make up their minds, is they’re looking for a lot of things Yuh-Line represents, right? That essentially a candidate that’s not taking corporate PAC money, who isn’t spending $4 million out of his family wealth to fund his own campaign,” Max Burns, a spokesperson for Niou’s campaign, said. 

“They’re looking for someone who’s actually done the work and has passed legislation affecting this community. And on that front, Yuh-Line brings a really strong record from Albany.”

Alyssa Cass, a spokesperson for Rivera’s campaign, touted Rivera’s endorsements from several New York City borough presidents and groups, including ones tied to unions, and called her record on abortion “unparalleled compared to the rest of the field.”

Coffey said that here too, The New York Times’ endorsement of Goldman could make a difference. Coffey is unaffiliated with any campaign but has given money to Rivera and Jo Anne Simon, who serves in the New York State Assembly and is also running in the 10th District.

“If you consider yourself a little bit progressive and were a little bit skeptical of his self-financing and Levi Strauss, all that stuff and all of a sudden, you get your copy of the Times and it says ‘we think he’s … a good one nut, he’s a good one,’ … that’s going to help validate him for you,” Coffey said. 

Source: TEST FEED1